Hey all
Raven,
wow never seen such dedication to a thread ! Agree with you that we walk a fine line between maintaining our COS and the training standard. However disagree that our training is second to none. Whether you meant that it was tied for first or that it was " the best" is irrelevant. The fact is , as within a cockpit, the minute you think you are too good to fail , that is when you have a serious accident or incident. I chose those words because they were recently used in our audit report.
There are many areas for improvement in our checking system. Expecting pilots to learn "local knowledge" from our lame route briefings is ridiculous. We should foster a culture where the pilot who has the local knowledge shares, line check or not. A pilot should come out of a sim a better pilot than they went in. That would require a more open "training" culture. The sim is an expensive piece of equipment highly under used here. When does anyone volunteer their weakness in the sim ?
If Captains are "checked" to a higher standard why do FOs do a 4 sector line check and the Captain only 2. If you were right it would be reversed. How many sim sessions where the FO eats the mistakes regardless of who made them ?
There is too much randomness in the checking process. Too much luck in who gets assigned for your checks on a command course. Some make it through with less ability than some who fail because of who they draw. Some people fail PCAs or 3bars or are pulled off command courses without fully understanding why.
The interesting thing is that maybe just maybe things may improve as based law creeps into contracts.
As for "vote with your feet" I have always hated that statement.
How about, "let's all work together to improve things" ! Here is the kicker we could improve the checking system and it would benefit everyone, the co. The pilots and the bottom line. The only ones left out might be those stuck in the dark ages, those unable to actually improve the performance of their trainee/checkee . Those who see themselves as custodians of the SOPs rather than helpfull motivators.
Peace out.